User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:07 pm

Since FAA Grounds B787: Part 14 (by LipeGIG Mar 23 2013 in Civil Aviation) is approaching 300 posts, which is usually when the thread is closed and a new one opened and because the FAA will shortly lift the grounding, I figure we can start a new thread.

The FAA has approved the battery system design changes developed by Boeing for the 787. The FAA will publish next week the final directive that will allow UA to resume operations of the 787. It is expected other regulatory agencies will follow shortly to allow the 787 to resume services worldwide.


http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14554
 
Norcal773
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:19 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:09 pm

About friggin' time!!
If you're going through hell, keep going
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:10 pm

And perhaps the most important thing: the FAA decides to keep the 787 3-hour ETOPS approval.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:11 pm

How soon will they return to flight? How long will it take the fixes to be put in place. And can the plane fly without the fix (i.e. in order to go get the fix) or is it fix it in place then fly it?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 2743
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:15 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
How soon will they return to flight? How long will it take the fixes to be put in place. And can the plane fly without the fix (i.e. in order to go get the fix) or is it fix it in place then fly it?

Fix it then fly.
UNITED We Stand
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:16 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
And perhaps the most important thing: the FAA decides to keep the 787 3-hour ETOPS approval.

Is that confirmed?



Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
How soon will they return to flight?

As early as next week for UA, once the FAA publishes the final directive, though the planes will need to be modified before they will be allowed to fly.

Other regulatory agencies will be working on their own timelines. Ethiopia may lift it today since Ethiopian Airlines was loading 787 flight schedules for tomorrow. However, I would guess that the FAA will require foreign operators of the 787 flying them within the US to have the fix. Boeing has a team in Addis Adaba working on the planes, but I believe it will be a few weeks before they are all completed.

Japan's Transport Ministry have said they intend to allow NH and JL to resume operations "quickly", though they will require both operators to introduce new safety measures, including remote monitoring of battery data such as voltage. They also call for more frequent battery inspections, from the present rate of about once every two years.

[Edited 2013-04-19 12:19:45]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:17 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
How soon will they return to flight? How long will it take the fixes to be put in place. And can the plane fly without the fix (i.e. in order to go get the fix) or is it fix it in place then fly it?

It will take mechanics 4 to 5 days per airplane to install the new battery. Boeing is sending teams to their customers to assist with the replacement of the batteries.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:20 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Is that confirmed?

Dominic Gates, an aerospace reporter for the Seattle Times, confirms this on Twitter.

Quote:
FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency hasn’t changed the Dreamliner’s ETOPS (“extended operations”) certification, which means the 787 will have continued approval to fly up to three hours away from the nearest airport.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3209
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:20 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Is that confirmed?


It seems so. Saw a tweet from Dominic Gates which says so.
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:25 pm

Long-awaited, excellent news. I wonder how many AOG teams they've assigned to do the rework. At 4-5 days per plane, that would take 3-4 weeks for 10 teams to get through all 50 planes, then there are the planes sitting at the factory which need the mod as well.
International Homo of Mystery
 
yellowtail
Posts: 3709
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:46 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:22 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 9):

Long-awaited, excellent news. I wonder how many AOG teams they've assigned to do the rework. At 4-5 days per plane, that would take 3-4 weeks for 10 teams to get through all 50 planes, then there are the planes sitting at the factory which need the mod as well.

I would assume that Boeing has not been sitting around twiddling their fingers waiting for the FAA Approval. Presumably they had an indication that this fix woudl be approved and probably have a few aircraft done already waiting on the approval. at the very least they have a lot of prep work down already that would cut that 5 day time down to a day.
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:28 pm

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 10):
Presumably they had an indication that this fix woudl be approved and probably have a few aircraft done already waiting on the approval.

That would be very silly of them. It would be far more expensive to have to undo the fix if approval wound up being denied than to just wait a few more days and wait for approval.

I really hope this is the last major issue that the 787 has. If there is one more on this scale, it might be a program killer.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:18 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
Quoting yellowtail (Reply 10):
Presumably they had an indication that this fix woudl be approved and probably have a few aircraft done already waiting on the approval.

That would be very silly of them. It would be far more expensive to have to undo the fix if approval wound up being denied than to just wait a few more days and wait for approval.

I really hope this is the last major issue that the 787 has. If there is one more on this scale, it might be a program killer

Boeing submitted only one fix. That fix was finalized after input from the FAA. Today's announcement is simply a public pronouncement. Boeing had a fix and tested the fix and deployed teams around the world with the parts to implement the fix.

It is likely some a/c will already be done. Expect to see aircraft on revenue flights next week with the fix in-place.

[Edited 2013-04-19 15:18:48]
 
mptpa
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:34 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:29 pm

I believe Boeing AOG teams had been a'at work' at least since last week. Seems like ET is one of them as they are trying to get the flights started in the coming days. I would also fathom a guess and say NH and JL has a few teams in place in Japan from Boeing as the first ones. So like sonomaflyer above states, I believe Boeing had this info from FAA a while back, and they have been quietly building up the changes, which makes sense.

Now hopefully, there was a team in ORD and/or IAH to get the UAL and LOT birds up and away. I believe no one can fly them out till the FAA AD is registered in the Federal Registrar, right?
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:44 pm

Quoting mptpa (Reply 13):
Now hopefully, there was a team in ORD and/or IAH to get the UAL and LOT birds up and away. I believe no one can fly them out till the FAA AD is registered in the Federal Registrar, right?

I don't see them trying to get approval from all of the countries overflown on a ferry flight for LOT (for example) to fly the a/c back to WAW to do the fix. They'll likely fix that a/c in ORD then either ferry back or do a revenue flight back from ORD with a crew deadheading out from WAW.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2334
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:48 pm

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 10):
Presumably they had an indication that this fix woudl be approved and probably have a few aircraft done already waiting on the approval. at the very least they have a lot of prep work down already that would cut that 5 day time down to a day.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
That would be very silly of them. It would be far more expensive to have to undo the fix if approval wound up being denied than to just wait a few more days and wait for approval.

Boeing has been communicating with the FAA daily since the grounding began. Even though the grounding was only lifted today they had a complete understanding of what modifications the FAA would require when the final paperwork comes out in the days ahead. As well as LOT ZA272 (86) that was used as the test airplane, ANA ZA512 (83) was modified and completed a FCF yesterday paving the way for a C-1 (as soon as all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed) and GUN ZA380 (34) was modified and scheduled for a B-1 yesterday but hasn't made it airborne yet.

While the AOG teams are modifying airplanes in the field there have also been teams made up of manufacturing people making those modifications at KPAE. I'm sure we'll see 2 or even 3 B-1's/FCF's a week over the next several weeks at KPAE.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7000
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:53 pm

Excellent news. I had feared that the fleet would not be up and flying before the summer peak, but now it seems that the Boeing AOG team can get the entire operation fleet up and running before the June peak.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:47 am

I wonder how many of the a/c that are still in Everett have had some work done already.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:43 am

Well let the fixes and deliveries begin! And the flights too! I've been itching to see them in action again in HND
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
davidho1985
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:27 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:00 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
That would be very silly of them. It would be far more expensive to have to undo the fix if approval wound up being denied than to just wait a few more days and wait for approval.

First, the chance of the modification being rejected is highly unlikely. Second, it cost both Boeing and the airlines a lot for the grounding of 787 every single day. Therefore, the risk (and the cost) of re-do the fix will outweight the cost of waiting for a few more days.
 
User avatar
RobK
Posts: 3212
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:43 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:07 am

So, how long until the next one catches fire then, given that the root cause still has not been established...   

(awaits    and pun not intended)
 
YYZAMS
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:54 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:17 am

I think I will let it fly around for a year or 2 before I go out of my way to fly on a 787....just my 2 cents (oops..I mean 5 cents since we no longer have the penny)
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
The FAA has approved the battery system design changes developed by Boeing for the 787
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
And perhaps the most important thing: the FAA decides to keep the 787 3-hour ETOPS approval.

Excellent news on both counts. Well done to all who have been involved in getting the 787 flying again   

Rgds
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:34 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
Well done to all who have been involved in getting the 787 flying again

Yes, and let's hope we'll regain two of our valued contributors… who have precisely been involved in that work.
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:33 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
That would be very silly of them. It would be far more expensive to have to undo the fix if approval wound up being denied than to just wait a few more days and wait for approval.

True, but this is fixing something that can't be proved to be fixed or broken to begin with, so the approved fix is mostly a feel good move to make everyone think that something has been done to turn a "dangerous" plane into a "safe" plane.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:39 am

50 in service+ about 35 waiting for the fix and pre delivery process, this year could still be a great 787 delivery year, the first 787-9 is soon loaded into the FAL, a few more frames in front of it.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:42 am

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 10):
I would assume that Boeing has not been sitting around twiddling their fingers waiting for the FAA Approval. Presumably they had an indication that this fix woudl be approved and probably have a few aircraft done already waiting on the approval.

It seems like this is not the case:

Quote:
Despite the uncertainties of when a battery kit will be delivered to each aircraft and when crews will begin working, it’s an easy guess that flights will not resume for at least a few weeks.

The repair kits could not be pre-positioned with the airlines in anticipation of the FAA’s approval because federal law requires them to remain with the manufacturer until the agency acts. Boeing has sent them to its global spares repositories but they still need to be physically shipped to the airlines.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:11 am



Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
Well done to all who have been involved in getting the 787 flying again

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   thumbsup 



Quoting Aircellist (Reply 23):
let's hope we'll regain two of our valued contributors… who have precisely been involved in that work.

I certainly hope so...but one of the two profiles is not active anymore, and the profile info of the other one indicates that he seems to have been seduced by the dark side   and is doing an MBA in Boston

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 24):
, but this is fixing something that can't be proved to be fixed or broken to begin with, so the approved fix is mostly a feel good move to make everyone think that something has been done to turn a "dangerous" plane into a "safe" plane.

  

Engineers look at the entire causal chain around the main visible event (in this case, the battery overheat) and work on either the causes (to prevent the event) or the consequences (mitigate the effect of the event)

UPSTREAM of the event, it is indeed still not known for certain what caused the problem. But even though no specific fix can be carried out on the one specific cause, I understand some general modifications were made to cater for a wide range of possible causes.
DOWNSTREAM of the event, the fixes Boeing has implemented have been widely reported (casing, venting etc...), with the objective of making sure that if the batteries have similar problems, it cannot lead to any foreseeable catastrophic damage.

This is a technically justified fix, that turns a "maybe-perhaps-possibly-under certain circumstances-dangerous" plane into an "as safe as we can make it" plane...but only if the fix is properly designed and executed.

[Edited 2013-04-20 04:15:03]
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
User avatar
RobK
Posts: 3212
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:43 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:37 pm

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 27):
DOWNSTREAM of the event, the fixes Boeing has implemented have been widely reported (casing, venting etc...), with the objective of making sure that if the batteries have similar problems, it cannot lead to any foreseeable catastrophic damage.

Well that's very reassuring for me as pax. Being over the middle of the Pacific at 39k and 3 hours from the nearest suitable airfield whilst having a raging inferno underway in the battery compartment would not bother me in the slightest. Nope, I'd be completely fine with that as the FAA said so.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:44 pm

The containment box should prevent any fire from spreading. The box is also sealed off, no air can go in, so a fire should extinguish itself (and there is a venting system too).

No need to fear an inferno  

[Edited 2013-04-20 06:46:17]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:13 pm

Yes, but no catastrophic event was imminent on the NH plane, the electrolyte in the battery is non-toxic, and the redesign was to further prevent something from happening that didn't actually happen in the one chance it had to do so.

The JL plane was on the ground and the "tall" fire happened after Boston fire broke the containment. In flight we don't know if it would have happened at all, or if the negative pressure would have worked as promised but are we to assume it wouldn't?

I'm glad they installed a sneeze guard, but the reality is that batteries fail, and one will fail again, and there will be an odor, and everyone will panic because this ridiculous grounding has conditioned everyone to be fearful.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:16 pm

And what caught fire on JL8's battery was the plastic wiring on the cells, not the cells themselves. This wiring has been replaced with a grade that has a significantly higher ignition point so even if all the cells enter thermal runaway, there may very well be no fire. I expect this wiring was tested as part of the re-certification, so even if it could catch fire, it sure has hell is not going to burn for hours.
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:18 pm

Quoting RobK (Reply 28):

Looking at it rationnally :
An airplane is flying through air so cold and with so little density as to kill any living being instantly, it's flying so fast that the rush of air and the pressure shocks would kill anything too. And there is only a few millimeters of material sperating the inside from the exterior. If flying low, the plane is still so fast that if it hits the ground, the difference of energy is enough to blast you half way to the moon (OK maybe not quite)
There are 2, sometimes 4, blazing infernos under the wings. Sometimes even directly attached to the fuselage. Usually there is another one in the back of the fuselage. Inside each inferno some parts are moving so fast that it is considered they can slice through anything if released.
All around the pax there are pipes holding highly corrosive fluid at 3000 or even 5000psi, to compare to the 100psi of pressure cleaning tools. Other pipes are transporting highly energetic air flows, and cables carry high power electrical currents. There are electrical connections everywhere, each one of which could trigger a spark. There are a whole bunch of high pressure containers within the aircraft, including the wheels or sometimes oxygen bottles. And on and on...

Every single one of these items, and many more, can kill you. Every one of them has been considered, the causes have been studied for means of prevention, and/or the consequences have been studied for means of mitigation. And the FAA/EASA/whomever gives their blessing for each one.

What makes the batteries so special ?
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
B6JFKH81
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:35 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:30 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 6):
It will take mechanics 4 to 5 days per airplane to install the new battery. Boeing is sending teams to their customers to assist with the replacement of the batteries.

4 to 5 DAYS per plane??    Okay, so being someone on the technical side of the industry I have a few questions about that:

> How many batteries per aircraft need to be replaced?
> Is there additional electrical re-work getting done on top of the battery swaps such as wiring, other components such as generators and whatnot?
> Are there any structural and/or safety changes being made in the structure surrounding the area the battery is in (brackets, insulation, additional/changed fire detection and suppression, etc.)?

4 to 5 days sounds a bit high for a battery swap which is why I ask, but I am not familiar with the inner workings of the 787. Thanks for any input!

~H81
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:33 pm

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 33):
How many batteries per aircraft need to be replaced?

Two.

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 33):
Is there additional electrical re-work getting done on top of the battery swaps such as wiring, other components such as generators and whatnot?

There is new wiring within the battery pack and I expect the wiring of the external connectors will be upgraded, as well.



Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 33):
Are there any structural and/or safety changes being made in the structure surrounding the area the battery is in (brackets, insulation, additional/changed fire detection and suppression, etc.)?

There will probably be some bracket changes to fit the larger containment vessel. There also will need to be plumbing run from that box to the fuselage shell to support the venting system.
 
carbon787
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:30 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:37 pm

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 32):
Quoting airmagnac (Reply 32):
Looking at it rationnally :
An airplane is flying through air so cold and with so little density as to kill any living being instantly, it's flying so fast that the rush of air and the pressure shocks would kill anything too. And there is only a few millimeters of material sperating the inside from the exterior. If flying low, the plane is still so fast that if it hits the ground, the difference of energy is enough to blast you half way to the moon (OK maybe not quite)
There are 2, sometimes 4, blazing infernos under the wings. Sometimes even directly attached to the fuselage. Usually there is another one in the back of the fuselage. Inside each inferno some parts are moving so fast that it is considered they can slice through anything if released.
All around the pax there are pipes holding highly corrosive fluid at 3000 or even 5000psi, to compare to the 100psi of pressure cleaning tools. Other pipes are transporting highly energetic air flows, and cables carry high power electrical currents. There are electrical connections everywhere, each one of which could trigger a spark. There are a whole bunch of high pressure containers within the aircraft, including the wheels or sometimes oxygen bottles. And on and on...

Every single one of these items, and many more, can kill you. Every one of them has been considered, the causes have been studied for means of prevention, and/or the consequences have been studied for means of mitigation. And the FAA/EASA/whomever gives their blessing for each one.

What makes the batteries so special ?

this is one of the most 'makes sense' statement I have yet read in these threads since the start of the grounding!!
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:39 pm



Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 33):
4 to 5 DAYS per plane??    Okay, so being someone on the technical side of the industry I have a few questions about that:

It's not just a simple swap, space in the avionics bay is limited and you have to do some rewiring too. Mechanics must also drill a small hole in the fuselage to vent gasses from the box. Then you have to test everyting etc. They may also swap 1 battery at a time, so that would make 2.5 days per battery. Sounds plausible to me.

[Edited 2013-04-20 07:42:00]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:40 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 30):
no catastrophic event was imminent on the NH plane, the electrolyte in the battery is non-toxic, and the redesign was to further prevent something from happening that didn't actually happen in the one chance it had to do so.

The JL plane was on the ground and the "tall" fire happened after Boston fire broke the containment. In flight we don't know if it would have happened at all, or if the negative pressure would have worked as promised but are we to assume it wouldn't?

Completely agreed, there apparently was no immediate danger in either case. But what may seem ridiculous to you is just proper saftey policies :

- you don't wait for an actual catastrophy to happen, it's much better to prevent than to react. Reacting to an actual catastrophy is very concrete and easy to visualise, but it's too late. Preventing means acting against something that has not happened yet, which makes it seem abstract and difficult to understand, but doesn't make it less useful. Actually, it's a lot more useful

- we are talking about extremely small probabilities. Regulations state that catastrophic events should have a probability of happening of no more than 1 in 1 billion flight hours. Even if the probability is 1 in 100 million, that's still too high, even though that means flying a 787 fleet for a cumulated total of 5700 years (2 batteries/plane) without even being certain of seeing the event happen even once (probability of 1 per X hours does not mean that you will be certain of having one event in X hours, it means that over a large repetition of X hours, the average occurence rate is one). These extremely remote probabilities may again make all this look very abstract and useless, but it's by rigorously dealing with these probabilities that aviation has become so safe

Shrugging it off and declaring the current design "good enough" is simply not acceptable. But there is also no need to call it a major catastrophy, a close-call or a near-accident. The truth, as often, lies somewhere in between those two extremes.

[Edited 2013-04-20 07:43:03]

[Edited 2013-04-20 07:46:52]
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
PITingres
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:54 pm

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 27):
UPSTREAM of the event, it is indeed still not known for certain what caused the problem. .....

This is a technically justified fix

The ground has been well covered, so I'll simply add that although I've not seen anything publicized along these lines, I'd be astonished if the fix did not also include some sort of improved recording and/or monitoring; so that if the charger and cell level changes don't suffice and another battery DOES poop itself in a similar manner, more data can be collected as to why, so that the underlying cause can be found and cured.

(and, of course, the containment improvements ought to ensure that any such failure is a non-event from an overall airplane status standpoint.)
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
B6JFKH81
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:35 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:09 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 36):

Thanks for the extra info guys, the time now makes more sense.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2728
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:45 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 26):
It seems like this is not the case:

That is not entirely correct. Allow me to explain.

As I wrote in another 787 thread, it is perfectly legal to do all kind of work on an airliner before the documentation has been approved by the appropriate authorities, you just can not release the airframe to service. As long as you properly record all the work performed, there is no problem with carrying out the work, and wait with the release to service until the documentation has been approved. This practice happens on a daily basis with all kind of repair developments.

There is nothing stopping the Boeing teams from doing the preparations, such as removing components to allow access to the required areas. Theoretically, they could even do reworks like drilling holes in fuselages. There is off course a risk involved when the repair instructions as finally approved, deviate from the work already carried out. I.e. when unexpected changes are mandated by the approval authority. However I fully expect that Boeing is in continuous talking with the approval authority(s), and has a pretty good idea what to expect. So they will be very well able to balance any associated risk.

The main problem area is, that they can not ship any components that need to go on the airplane. These parts require design approval and production approval. Based on these approvals a release certification (Form 1 in EASA world, Form 8130 – I think – in FAA world) must be issued before the components can leave the production facility. As long as the appropriate Service Bulletins have no regulatory (FAA) approval, these components can not (legally) leave the boundaries of the production facility.

So once FAA signs off on the SB’s, you can rest assured that many many modification kits will ship out to support the already ongoing modification efforts.

Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:57 pm

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 37):
Completely agreed, there apparently was no immediate danger in either case. But what may seem ridiculous to you is just proper saftey policies :

Actually, its completely unprecedented.

There is no historical reason that the 787 was grounded in this fashion, yet the 777 was not after the BA crash, the A380 wasn't after the engine explosion, the A330 after the AF crash. It's completely inconsistent and stems from either paranoia or politics. Whenever I offer a political reason, its deleted. But let's just say powerful people in both parties are not fans of Boeing and leave it at that.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:29 pm

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 37):

Completely agreed, there apparently was no immediate danger in either case. But what may seem ridiculous to you is just proper saftey policies :

- you don't wait for an actual catastrophy to happen, it's much better to prevent than to react. Reacting to an actual catastrophy is very concrete and easy to visualise, but it's too late.

Earlier in the discussions I said I would have no issue with flying the unmodified 787, but also said I am glad the FAA took action because the public here and Japan were losing faith in the aircraft.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 41):
Whenever I offer a political reason, its deleted.

It might be because you've been offering inflammatory accusations without any evidence.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
kalvado
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:06 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 41):
There is no historical reason that the 787 was grounded in this fashion, yet the 777 was not after the BA crash, the A380 wasn't after the engine explosion, the A330 after the AF crash. It's completely inconsistent and stems from either paranoia or politics. Whenever I offer a political reason, its deleted.

Well, maybe because there is obviously no political reason?
Unlike the cases you mentioned, 787 demonstrated a PATTERN of failures.
In case of A380, engine explosion turned out to be a systematic problem with certain engine. Once it turned to be a pattern, subfleet was grounded until engines were repaired.
In case of 777 and 330 problem, although systematic, had low enough probability as it could be determined at the time of accident - so that issue could be fixed in less than extremely urgent fashion.
If any of those accidents occurred within first year of operation - e.g. before reliability was proven statistically - that could be a very different story.
 
art
Posts: 2670
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:08 pm

It's very good to hear that the 787 will soon be back in service.

Boeing had a banner ad at the top of one of the pages on a.net (perhaps it's still there) giving an update on the 787's status, fullsome in its praise of the aircraft. Among the many virtues claimed is this:

Quote:
Environmentally responsible – the most fuel efficient commercial jet airplane ever.
http://787updates.newairplane.com/FA...&utm_campaign=UK-Contextual-Boeing

OK, promote your product but doesn't this go too far? If Boeing's claim were true why would any airline order A380 except to contend with the problem of slot constricted airports?
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:14 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 41):
777 was not after the BA crash, the A380 wasn't after the engine explosion, the A330 after the AF crash

In all of these cases, and in the cases of all the ADs issued over the years for all aircraft, the main cause(s) was (were) quickly narrowed down, even if the rigourous proof was not established for several months or years. Even amid the loads of BS claimed by the media, it took only a few days after AF447 to figure out it was probably due to a pitot icing + wrong pilot reaction, thanks to the ACARS messages. And within 3 weeks after BA38, airlines were already reviewing their fuel quality procedures to prevent icing problems :
http://web.archive.org/web/20080217204033/http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120277026942260315.html
And usually, solutions are found which can be implemented in the short term to reduce the likelihood of a repeat.

Also, in the cases of the 330 and 777, the accidents happened after an already long service life without major problems, giving confidence that an immediate repeat of these events was unlikely before the fixes were in place. As for the 380, it was an extremely serious situation, but the airframe proved it could resist to quite a battering and continue flying.

In the case of the 787 batteries, the causes of the overheat were unknown, and remain so to this day meaning no action could be taken to prevent a repeat. And it seems that there were worries about the possible effects of a similar battery failure under certain circimstances.
So IOW FAA knew there was a problem, did not know how its causes could be prevented, did not know how its consequences could be mitigated, and did not have enough experience with the aircraft to have any confidence. What else could they do but ground the plane till they had gathered more info ?

The grounding made sense, no need for conspiracy theories about paranoia or politics
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:47 am

Quoting RobK (Reply 28):
Well that's very reassuring for me as pax. Being over the middle of the Pacific at 39k and 3 hours from the nearest suitable airfield whilst having a raging inferno underway in the battery compartment would not bother me in the slightest. Nope, I'd be completely fine with that as the FAA said so

Better not fly then. EVERY battery technology in use on aircraft has the potential to cause fires, and they don't have containment systems in many cases.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:28 pm

The only "raging inferno" caused by a battery on a commercial airliner you will ever encounter is going to be one in the overhead bin or under the seat when a laptop enters thermal runaway.

And in neither case will that "raging inferno" be contained inside a titanium box with minimal oxygen and a direct vent to the outside of the plane.

  
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:46 pm

http://www.japantoday.com/smartphone...-up-to-200-boeing-787-test-flights
NH conducting 100-200 test flights throughout May and will resume service in June if all goes well.

Also:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...tra-safety-measures-for-dreamliner
More additional safety measures will be implemented by the transportation ministry, including more inspections on the battery and voltage monitors.

[Edited 2013-04-21 17:13:05]
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
twiga
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:24 pm

RE: FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes

Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:58 am

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 32):
There are 2, sometimes 4, blazing infernos under the wings. Sometimes even directly attached to the fuselage. Usually there is another one in the back of the fuselage. Inside each inferno some parts are moving so fast that it is considered they can slice through anything if released.
Quoting airmagnac (Reply 32):
Every single one of these items, and many more, can kill you. Every one of them has been considered, the causes have been studied for means of prevention, and/or the consequences have been studied for means of mitigation. And the FAA/EASA/whomever gives their blessing for each one. What makes the batteries so special ?

Exactly - I couldn't agree more. Below I tried a post with a similar theme but this keeps coming back.

"I think it all comes down to not trusting the engineering of the new robust vented containment vessel system. Please help me understand because I just don't get it. (1)-On the one hand you trust the engineering of the APU which is inside the fuselage and at 1200 hp puts out at least 100 times more heat, fire and smoke than any little burning battery ever could. (2)-On the other hand you don't trust the engineering of the new containment vessel system, which because of the present issues and implications to Boeing has probably received more attention in engineering than any comparable system on the airplane. Furthermore in (1) this fire and heat happens everytime the airplane flies. Both (1) and (2) would have been engineered to that aircraft statistical metric of 1:10^7 or whatever they use. Its likely the same statistic metric they use for two engines out."

If they don't trust the engineering then there are about a million other things they should be worried about on the airplane. For these people I would suggest either the bus or the train and then they might want to double check the safety metric, and I think they will find it less than 1:10^7.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aflyingkiwi, Baidu [Spider], Dutchy, eidvm, Gemuser, iahcsr, NZdsgnr, PanHAM, RohanDXB, SXDFC, UAinAUS, xiaotung and 201 guests